Site Mobile Navigation

U.S. Backs Off Sanctions, Seeing Poor Effect Abroad

The White House and Congress have decided that in many cases, sanctions just are not an effective way to make foreign policy.

In recent months, the United States has backed off imposing sanctions on Asian countries so they would be free to buy American wheat, on Cuba so a court fight with Canada and European allies could be avoided, and on China so American businesses could compete in that huge market.

Both Administration and Congressional leaders have avoided sanctions, in large part, because of complaints from farm and business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and USA Engage, a powerful coalition of 676 companies.

The business leaders contend that in the highly competitive global economy, now regulated by an international trade organization, economic sanctions are ineffective at getting most countries to change and are actually backfiring since they hurt American business.

About two dozen countries are now subjected to sanctions and about 50 more face the possibility of such penalties, trade groups say. And the trend has been growing. More than 60 laws or executive orders authorizing sanctions -- about half the total since World War I -- have been enacted in the last five years. That roughly coincides with the end of the cold war and the superpower rivalry that had been the chief arena of foreign policy.

But sanctions failed to fill the vacuum, and now legislators and policymakers are pulling the teeth out of existing sanctions or dropping proposed penalties, fearing that unilateral sanctions in particular are hurting American business or diplomatic interests more than the foreign countries or companies they are intended to punish.

This month, Congress exempted food exports from sanctions automatically imposed on India and Pakistan after the two nations conducted nuclear tests in May. The exemption was made in part because the penalties would have barred American farmers from bidding on a $37 million wheat order from Pakistan.

Last week, a Senate committee shelved a popular bill to punish nations, including China, that endorsed or permitted religious persecution after business groups protested that the punishments would alienate allies and trading partners.

''There is a very significant re-evaluation going on regarding sanctions, as there should be,'' said Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican who led the fight to set aside the religious persecution bill.

The Administration is also recalibrating its approach. In 1996, President Clinton signed into law bills aimed at isolating Cuba, Libya and Iran. But when the measures threatened to draw the United States into a legal challenge and trade war with Canada and European allies, the Administration backed down.

''Having gone through these experiences, it made people recognize we needed a better process for the executive branch,'' said Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

The proliferation of sanctions has prompted the State Department and the Senate to form special panels to review the usefulness of sanctions. Legislation is pending in the House and Senate that would require a cost-benefit analysis for new sanctions and would end them after two years unless they are reauthorized.

''The free ride for sanctions is over,'' said Richard N. Haass, a former national security aide to President Bush and an editor of a new book on sanctions and diplomacy. ''Like other foreign policy tools, sanctions are now subject to greater scrutiny.''

Administration and Congressional leaders say they are not abandoning sanctions entirely; instead, they want to use them sparingly and in a more focused way. At the same time, these leaders recognize that in place of sanctions, the United States has few options and will either have to rely more on diplomacy or accept its limitations and do nothing at all.

For years, sanctions have provided Congress and the White House with forceful alternatives short of war.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

''As an effective and principled foreign policy tool, economic sanctions are older than this republic itself,'' said Senator Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican who heads the Foreign Relations Committee.

Congress, in particular, has been more eager in recent years to slap on an arms embargo, cut foreign aid, vote against appropriating money to the International Monetary Fund, or threaten to do all of those.

''We're less patient with diplomacy and less tolerant of foreign government actions we don't like,'' said Representative Lee H. Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat on the International Relations Committee. ''They make us feel like a player in foreign policy, where our powers tend to be more limited.''

The United States has used sanctions to protest political repression, in places like Myanmar, formerly Burma, and to deny nuclear weapons technology to countries like Iran. But other penalties aim to punish countries that mislabel tuna products sold here or withhold foreign aid from nations whose diplomats do not pay their parking tickets.

Even states and municipalities are jumping in, much to the State Department's dismay. Massachusetts has imposed sanctions on companies that do business in Myanmar. New York City is threatening sanctions against Switzerland to press for reparations for Holocaust victims.

Instances in which sanctions have achieved their goal are few. In virtually all the success stories, the United States was joined by many other nations in imposing the penalties.

The international sanctions imposed against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 have slowed, but not stopped, President Saddam Hussein's ability to rebuild his arsenal. And, of course, they have failed to help topple Mr. Hussein.

Multilateral sanctions helped to end apartheid in South Africa, but were requested by the black-majority population and were only one factor that influenced the white minority leadership there.

But even multilateral sanctions have a limited bite. They failed to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait before the Persian Gulf war or force Haiti's military rulers to return President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. Only the use, or threat, of military force accomplished those goals.

Nor has Congress applied these sanctions with any firm consistency. Political repression in one country is punished; in another it is overlooked.

''There is hardly anybody in this room who has been entirely consistent on this subject,'' said Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican leading the Senate's review of sanctions, who has supported punishing Myanmar for political repression but not China.

Supporters of unilateral sanctions say the penalties have symbolic value on important moral issues, and underscore the United States' leadership role in fighting religious persecution, oppressive regimes or the spread of missile technology.

For instance, the House and Senate this year voted overwhelmingly to impose sanctions on foreign companies or official agencies that aid Iran's ballistic-missile program. Mr. Clinton vetoed the legislation, which is aimed mainly at Russian and Chinese companies, asserting that the bill would hamper the Administration's flexibility in conducting foreign policy. But Congress may override the veto.

''The legislation sends a message to Russian or Chinese companies that they have a choice: 'Do business with the United States or do business with Iran,' '' said Howard Kohr, executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this article appears in print on July 31, 1998, on Page A00001 of the National edition with the headline: U.S. Backs Off Sanctions, Seeing Poor Effect Abroad. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe